Randomness thread, part two.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It doesn't look like gun violence is even in the top 10 causes of death in the US.
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lea...s-of-death.htm

I mean... if you're opposed to guns because they cause untimely deaths, then you should be about 15x more upset about high cholesterol foods causing heart disease. If you're going to munch a cheeseburger while telling how bad guns are 'cause they kill kids 'n stuff, then I'm not listening. People selling your neighbor a cheeseburger are more responsible for untimely deaths in the US than the people selling your neighbor a gun.

[Poopadoop]

Ban cheeseburgers!

Or, make it so you can't order one unless your BMI is in a healthy range.

As for guns, well there's a difference between people eating themselves to death and them being murdered by someone else.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't see the difference from a national health perspective.
If your argument in favor of gun control is because you don't want to get killed, and you don't want people you know to get killed, then that's not a reason for legislation on the national scale.

If your argument that gun deaths pose a problem on the national scale requiring legislation, then there are bigger fish to fry on that scale, IMO.

The argument in favor of gun control is not like one about people eating themselves to death. It's like one about the industry facilitating those people's deaths.
With arguments in favor of gun control, it's not about the people using the guns, it's about the industry supplying the guns, or about the guns themselves. It's not the people who own guns who are dangerous, it's the guns themselves - not the person eating the cheeseburger, but the cheeseburger itself.

[Poopadoop]

I don't see the difference from a national health perspective.
If your argument in favor of gun control is because you don't want to get killed, and you don't want people you know to get killed, then that's not a reason for legislation on the national scale.

Why not? People here don't want to get killed by guns either, that's why we have strict laws about ownership.

If your argument that gun deaths pose a problem on the national scale requiring legislation, then there are bigger fish to fry on that scale, IMO.

There may well be. I don't think anyone said guns are the number one cause of death. Surely smoking is a bigger problem. But just because it's not the worst thing that needs improving doesn't mean it doesn't need improving.

It's not the people who own guns who are dangerous, it's the guns themselves - not the person eating the cheeseburger, but the cheeseburger itself.

I would argue it's both the person carrying out the behaviour and whether society has laws that facilitate that behaviour.

[OngBonga]

I can't name a single ice hockey player. I do know one field hockey player though, or at least a former one...

Fatimo Moreira de Melo. She's a smoking hot Dutch poker player, in case you're unaware. Also Olympic Gold Medalist hockey player.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Why not? People here don't want to get killed by guns either, that's why we have strict laws about ownership.

Because individual concerns are not the scale of problems which national laws address.
You don't want to get shot, and you don't want people you know to get shot - at best a local issue.
You are opposed to the untimely deaths caused by guns in your country - a national issue.

There may well be. I don't think anyone said guns are the number one cause of death. Surely smoking is a bigger problem. But just because it's not the worst thing that needs improving doesn't mean it doesn't need improving.

My point is that IF your argument is about untimely deaths caused by the ready availability of guns, AND IF you're not even more upset about untimely deaths caused by the ready availability of high-cholesterol foods, then I'm inclined to see your arguments as emotionally-based. No matter how much data you can produce to support your case, you're actively ignoring other data that shows your proposed solutions only address about 7% of the problem, as you've presented it. I'm not inclined to pay too much attention to that hypocrisy.

I would argue it's both the person carrying out the behaviour and whether society has laws that facilitate that behaviour.

Exactly. So if you're not even more upset and opposed to people eating foods with high cholesterol as you are about people owning guns, then your stated reason "'cause death is bad" is not addressing the real concern.


If your argument against guns is not about untimely deaths, then lay it on me, 'cause I haven't heard one, yet.

[MadMojoMonkey]

On a more random note:
My mouse wheel is going bad, so I bought a new mouse on ebay. I was feeling a little saucy, so I bought a $50 gaming mouse.
Today, it arrived in the mail, and at about the same time, I received a string of emails saying that my order had been canceled and my paypal refunded.

So I got a new gaming mouse for free 'cause of who knows how that happened.

It goes nicely with my free umbrella from about a month ago when I ordered 1, and they shipped me 2 of them, at different times.

Altogether over $60 in free stuff, counting the shipping charges.

[oskar]

I don't think self inflicted causes should be in the same category as outside causes.

Firearm related deaths are #2 in preventable deaths in children after motor vehicle crashes: https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...21/child-death
Where #1 is only somehow preventable, and #2 doesn't even make the list in most developed countries:

You make it sound like you somehow would have to choose between going for a jog and stricter gun laws... you can totally do both and they're not going to affect each other.

[Poopadoop]

I can't name a single ice hockey player. I do know one field hockey player though, or at least a former one...

Fatimo Moreira de Melo. She's a smoking hot Dutch poker player, in case you're unaware. Also Olympic Gold Medalist hockey player.

Wow that sport is rough!

fatima.jpg

[Poopadoop]

On a more random note:
My mouse wheel is going bad, so I bought a new mouse on ebay. I was feeling a little saucy, so I bought a $50 gaming mouse.
Today, it arrived in the mail, and at about the same time, I received a string of emails saying that my order had been canceled and my paypal refunded.

So I got a new gaming mouse for free 'cause of who knows how that happened.

It goes nicely with my free umbrella from about a month ago when I ordered 1, and they shipped me 2 of them, at different times.

Altogether over $60 in free stuff, counting the shipping charges.

Bonus!

My previous landlord was too cheap to do any repairs that weren't absolutely necessary or redecorate for five years. When I moved out I didn't have a chance to clean up properly so I offered her £300 off my deposit to pay for cleaning. She refused it and told me she wanted the entire deposit of £800 because she wanted to redo the wallpaper, lay new carpets to replace the one that was about 20 years old, and paint the walls, none of which she showed any interest in doing while I lived there. I said don't think so - tenant's not responsible for redocorating, and sent her a link to the law that said exactly that. She tried to argue with me but I wouldn't budge, so she took it to the Tenant Deposit Scheme (ombudsman that resolves disputes over deposits).

But, the legal genius didn't take an inventory when I moved in (so no record of the condition of the property), had lost her copy of the lease (so no way to prove she was allowed to withold any of the deposit at all), and just wrote to the ombudsman about some irrelevant shit about how I'd pissed off one of the neighbors three years earlier by not cleaning up the back garden for a while. Then sent an estimate for all the redecoratig stuff I wasn't responsible for.

Ombudsman told her to gtfo and gave me my whole £800 back.

So, in a nutshell, rather than accept my offer of £300, she tried for the whole £800 without a leg to stand on and ended up with nothing.

Meanwhile I netted £300 because she didn't understand what the law was, and didn't believe me when I pointed her to the actual relevant Act.

Some people really shouldn't be allowed to rent property. Or handle money.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think self inflicted causes should be in the same category as outside causes.

Firearm related deaths are #2 in preventable deaths in children after motor vehicle crashes: https://www.advisory.com/daily-brief...21/child-death
Where #1 is only somehow preventable, and #2 doesn't even make the list in most developed countries:

You make it sound like you somehow would have to choose between going for a jog and stricter gun laws... you can totally do both and they're not going to affect each other.

In the first link, they don't actually say the %-age for gun related deaths. They say it's number 2 after auto crashes, which is 20% of all child deaths. Then they mention a bunch of % changes about gun deaths, but not the actual stat. So it's less than 20%.
Later, in the 'Shameful' numbers section, it says, "The grim statistics include suicides, which occur mainly in adolescents and which accounted for 35% of firearm-related deaths and 13% of all deaths among children and adolescents in 2016."

I think that's saying suicides account for 13% of all gun deaths among children. So we can put a lower bound at 13% and an upper bound at 20%, leaving at most 7% of all child deaths are gun-related non-suicides. I think. Ignoring self-inflicted causes.

2nd link is mostly about infant mortality. Where in that article are you referencing? I didn't even see mention of the US in there, so is the comparison to the other site? Sorry. I didn't fully follow.

[oskar]

The second link is from the UK where gun related deaths don't make the list. That was the point.

It should be around 16% or about 3000 out of 20,000 annually. That's just deaths. The average school shooting leaves more kids injured than dead, leave them with ptsd and and many will die prematurely from related causes. This is fairly recent: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/u...des/index.html AUTOPLAY WARNING

This is completely preventable. The UK had a massive school shooting in the 90's. They said: you know what: no more guns for you guys, and guess what: no more school shootings. School shootings are entirely off the radar for the entirety of europe.

Every study ever done shows that guns completely fail at protecting you. And if anyone besides banana is wondering what I think about police... I think anyone dumb enough to join the police force should be the last person you hand a fucking gun. Fuck the police. No guns for you. Enough people will do the job for the power trip, even without guns. Won't be an issue.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The second link is from the UK where gun related deaths don't make the list. That was the point.

Oh. Different cultures have different problems.
News at 11.

It should be around 16% or about 3000 out of 20,000 annually. That's just deaths.

Yeah, but also you said:

I don't think self inflicted causes should be in the same category as outside causes.

and the 'grim statistic' you shared said that 13% of those are suicides, i.e. self-inflicted causes.

So we're talking about 3% of all child deaths. Agreed?

The average school shooting leaves more kids injured than dead, leave them with ptsd and and many will die prematurely from related causes.

Not a compelling reason, IMO. The vast, vast majority of the universe is immediately hostile to all forms of cell structure. Humans are brutal and savage (among other, better qualities). I'm not a fan of shielding children from reality "for their benefit."

@bold: sounds impossible to prove. Where'd you get this?

This is fairly recent: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/26/u...des/index.html AUTOPLAY WARNING

Suicides? I really thought you said

I don't think self inflicted causes should be in the same category as outside causes.

This is completely preventable. The UK had a massive school shooting in the 90's. They said: you know what: no more guns for you guys, and guess what: no more school shootings. School shootings are entirely off the radar for the entirety of europe.

Different cultures have different problems.
News at 11.

Every study ever done shows that guns completely fail at protecting you.

lol. OK.

And if anyone besides banana is wondering what I think about police... I think anyone dumb enough to join the police force should be the last person you hand a fucking gun. Fuck the police. No guns for you. Enough people will do the job for the power trip, even without guns. Won't be an issue.

I wasn't until you brought it up, but now I am.

I'm of the opinion that owning guns (or whatever means you prefer) for hunting to feed your family is a human right. I'm of the opinion that everyone has that right. I'm of the opinion that police are people, too.

[oskar]

re: bold
https://www.philly.com/news/gun-viol...-20181127.html
If you roll around in a wheelchair, shit in a bag and/or have some organs missing it's gonna be a rough life.

No, suicides stay in. There's a clear indication that having a gun around massively increases the risk of suicide. That makes perfect sense, right? Planning a suicide vs having what is basically a suicide button around is going to make a difference:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/14/h...ile/index.html warning: autoplay

lol. OK.

Feel free to post-hoc scavenge the internet for anything that supports your preconception and we can review it together.

[oskar]

Not a compelling reason, IMO. The vast, vast majority of the universe is immediately hostile to all forms of cell structure. Humans are brutal and savage (among other, better qualities). I'm not a fan of shielding children from reality "for their benefit."

Just so I can wrap my head around this: You're against preventing school shootings because you don't want to shield children from the reality of school shootings?

[Poopadoop]

Just so I can wrap my head around this: You're against preventing school shootings because you don't want to shield children from the reality of school shootings?

Are you also against finding a cure for cancer because it would shield people from the reality of cancer?

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you roll around in a wheelchair, shit in a bag and/or have some organs missing it's gonna be a rough life.

It's terrible that happened to him, but the cause of that tragedy is criminal insanity. The prevention you back will negatively impact far more people than the negative impact to those few victims.

No number of stories of injured children due to the actions of individual criminals with heinous intent are going to impact my position that these are an acceptable price to pay for freedom from absurd tyranny. Freedom to hunt for food. Freedom to defend yourself from both criminal people and from wild animals.

No, suicides stay in.

Then heart cancer stays in, and what you claim to be upset about, untimely deaths, is a problem that you're not remotely directly addressing.

It's you who said, "I don't think self inflicted causes should be in the same category as outside causes."
Now, you're changing your story.

There's a clear indication that having a gun around massively increases the risk of suicide. That makes perfect sense, right? Planning a suicide vs having what is basically a suicide button around is going to make a difference:
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/08/14/h...ile/index.html warning: autoplay

It's the goalpost you set, and you've moved. Not mine.
If suicides are on the table, then cheeseburgers are on the table.
Which is nice, 'cause it's lunch time.


It's tragic that kids are victims, and personally, it hurts more. However, from a national legislation perspective, they are citizens.

There's a clear indication that having a gun makes hunting much more efficient.
There's a clear indication that multiple genocides have taken place in my lifetime.
There's a clear indication that ruling powers repeatedly exercise prejudice when applying lethal force all over the world and all throughout history.

Feel free to post-hoc scavenge the internet for anything that supports your preconception and we can review it together.

Not my responsibility to prove you are talking out your ass. Your responsibility to prove you aren't.
You said this, "Every study ever done shows that guns completely fail at protecting you."
Now go ahead and prove that negative. Produce "every study" and show me how right you are.
Or admit that you made that up, were inventing "facts" to fit your narrative, and let's move on.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Just so I can wrap my head around this: You're against preventing school shootings because you don't want to shield children from the reality of school shootings?

Slow down. I'm not against preventing school shootings.

I'm against penalizing non-murderers for the actions of murderers.

I'm against the false notion that guns are only for killing humans, and no other use exists.
I'm against the false notion that just because the gov't isn't coming for us today, that means they'll never come for us.
I'm against the false notion that my own gov't is all-powerful at maintaining law and order under all probable futures.

I'm perfectly against any violence against humans. I'm not in favor of the death penalty. I think prisons should be both far fewer and smaller, and also nicer. It is a cultural conceit to determine that someone is unfit to participate in a society, but it is barbaric to say they don't deserve life and the pursuit of happiness as they see fit. To the extent that their liberty needs to be curtailed for the safety of others, I'm OK with that. I'm not in favor of the punitive side of jurisprudence. I think it feeds a barbaric mindset that retribution is a rational way to behave.

However, I'm not so naive as to pretend that just because it appalls me, that it isn't reality.
Humans are brutal, unpredictable savages sometimes. It's the harsh reality.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Are you also against finding a cure for cancer because it would shield people from the reality of cancer?

lol

I never said the thing he said I said.

I said tragedy is part of life and shielding people (children specifically) from the existence of tragedy is not a compelling argument for the wide-spread impact on American life and values that he proposes as a solution.

[oskar]

idk what's going on with you today, but I'll respond tomorrow. Doesn't sound like we're going to have a reasonable argument today.

[Jack Sawyer]

Firefox in 2019 is like IE in 2009

LOL you have no clue what you are talking about

Firefox is on the bleeding edge of standards right now

If you want to be all 2020 and stuff, try Brave

[Jack Sawyer]

Every study ever done shows that guns completely fail at protecting you. And if anyone besides banana is wondering what I think about police... I think anyone dumb enough to join the police force should be the last person you hand a fucking gun. Fuck the police. No guns for you. Enough people will do the job for the power trip, even without guns. Won't be an issue.

Edit: video cuts right before he kills him. He kept telling him to do nonsensical instructions (dude was drunk, too, so how could he follow the jump up jump down turn around clap your hands routine), and then shot him dead.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Shooting_of_Daniel_Shaver

And the cop was acquitted.

ON the side of his gun he had "You're fucked" etched. This was declared inadmissible.

[OngBonga]

LOL you have no clue what you are talking about

I'm not gonna argue with this.

[Poopadoop]

I think anyone dumb enough to join the police force should be the last person you hand a fucking gun. Fuck the police. No guns for you. Enough people will do the job for the power trip, even without guns. Won't be an issue.

If you gotta be dumb to join the police, how dumb do you have to be to volunteer for the army?

Not taking anything away from people who are patriotic and want to serve their country and all that, but my suspicion is a fair number of people who join the army are psychopaths who shouldn't be let anywhere near a gun, never mind handed one and given permission to use it.

Armed forces kid-killer Trump intervened on behalf of is a case in point. No matter how scary being in a combat zone is, you don't get to take out your PTSD on some kid. And if you signed up for combat (voluntarily I might add), and can't hack it, get a section 8 and sit it out.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Edit: video cuts right before he kills him. He kept telling him to do nonsensical instructions (dude was drunk, too, so how could he follow the jump up jump down turn around clap your hands routine), and then shot him dead.

I'm not watching the video anew.
For all your criticism, I'm guessing it cut the beginning where the other drunk person he was with managed to follow all of the instructions.
If it cut right before he got shot, then did it cut out the part where the guy was crawling in such a way that shielded the right side of his body from the officer? Did it cut the part where his right arm makes a movement behind that hidden right side, in a manner inconsistent with crawling, even in the manner that guy chose to crawl?

'Cause there are much better videos showing clear cases of police using lethal force when it was not warranted, but that one had other police pretty divided as to whether or not it was appropriate use of force.

[OngBonga]

And if you signed up for combat (voluntarily I might add), and can't hack it, get a section 8 and sit it out.

I think you underestimate the psychological trauma that soldiers in the combat zone have to endure. I know someone who went to Iraq. During his time out there, his convoy was hit by an IED. He had to pick bits of his friends up. Some time later, he lost his shit completely. At a checkpoint, there was a local with his kid, shouting or something, idk the details, but the lad I knew went insane and beat the man to death with his gun while the kid watched in horror. He was promptly sent back home and pretty much abandoned, no charges were brought. He then tried to rape his best friend's girlfriend, she stabbed him and nearly killed him, when he recovered he tried to get her charged for attempted murder, before he hung himself.

How do you know if you're mentally fit for combat? He didn't until he lost his shit. By then it's too late.

[Poopadoop]

How do you know if you're mentally fit for combat? He didn't until he lost his shit. By then it's too late.

Right after someone is picking up bits of their friend they should be on the next plane home.

The only person who wouldn't be traumatized by that is a psychopath.

It's sad for all involved, but also kinda proves my point that why would you join the army? Especially in a country where the army is mostly used for attacking other countries that haven't attacked us. The kindest interpretation is it's from a naive sense of patriotism.

[OngBonga]

Right after someone is picking up bits of their friend they should be on the next plane home.

If we had this attitude in WWI we'd probably have lost.

The only person who wouldn't be traumatized by that is a psychopath.

I agree, but people deal with trauma in different ways. He wasn't alone in having to pick up body parts. idk what happened to the other survivors of that incident, but I imagine at least some of them have come to terms with their experiences and are living something close to a normal life.

It seems clear to me that this guy I knew was not given the support he should have been given. When active soldiers do terrible things as a result of his inability to cope with trauma, the blame has to lie with the army, not the soldier. They're the ones sending young lads into war zones without sufficient psychological preparation, they're the ones failing to monitor those who have experienced trauma, they're the ones failing to provide the appropriate support for those who need it. The soldier, he's just a human being who has been trained to kill, who couldn't come to terms with his experiences. It's not fair to call these people psychopaths. Many of us would be psychopathic under such circumstances. I have no idea if I could hold my shit together in a war zone. I hope I never get to find out.

[Poopadoop]

If we had this attitude in WWI we'd probably have lost.

We're not in WWI. If it's a matter of the country doing imperialist shit or whatever they were doing in Iraq, they can suck it. The only reasons they don't send people like this guy straight home or into therapy or both is because it's expensive to do that, and they'd have to find someone to replace him which also costs money, and it's a bad for recruiting if 10% of your army ends up in therapy. They just prefer to cross their fingers and hope he doesn't go completely crazy. And if he shoots some innocent civilian they just call it 'collateral damage' or some other b.s. euphimism.

I agree, but people deal with trauma in different ways. He wasn't alone in having to pick up body parts. idk what happened to the other survivors of that incident, but I imagine at least some of them have come to terms with their experiences and are living something close to a normal life.

Data missing, but yeah I expect not everyone goes off the rails after something like this.

It seems clear to me that this guy I knew was not given the support he should have been given. When active soldiers do terrible things as a result of his inability to cope with trauma, the blame has to lie with the army, not the soldier. They're the ones sending young lads into war zones without sufficient psychological preparation, they're the ones failing to monitor those who have experienced trauma, they're the ones failing to provide the appropriate support for those who need it. The soldier, he's just a human being who has been trained to kill, who couldn't come to terms with his experiences. It's not fair to call these people psychopaths. Many of us would be psychopathic under such circumstances. I have no idea if I could hold my shit together in a war zone. I hope I never get to find out.

I agree, but you're kinda missing my point. What kinds of people actually WANT to be in the army in a non-survival-of-the-country situation that isn't like WWI or II? Would you?

I suspect some are misguided patriots, some have no better options, but qute a few are psychos who enjoy the idea of killing people.

Also, while the army definitely failed this solider, witnessing a horrific scene doesn't give you a free pass to kill innocent people either. The guy has to take some blame for his own actions too.

[OngBonga]

I suspect some are misguided patriots, some have no better options, but qute a few are psychos who enjoy the idea of killing people.

I think you underestimate the motivation of those you would put into the "no better option" category. A lot of people want to do good with their life. Some people are at least smart enough to know they're not very smart, and that they're not going to be a microbiologist. So they choose a career that will make their parents proud, that will give them a good sense of self worth. A few of them are naive and think they are mentally up for the challenge when they are not.

Of course there's psychos. To be honest, front line of the military is the best place for these kind of people.They're either winning wars for the country or the first to get dead.

Also, while the army definitely failed this solider, witnessing a horrific scene doesn't give you a free pass to kill innocent people either. The guy has to take some blame for his own actions too.

Morally, I wish I could agree with this. But I don't. The military trained him to kill. He then experienced extreme trauma, and couldn't come to terms with it. I think it's fair to say he was in a state of insanity. I'm not saying that's the same as a "free pass". When he lost his shit and did what he did, he should've been locked up in a secure place for mentally disturbed people, probably a specialist unit for soldiers with PTSD. You can still hold him responsible for his actions in the sense you protect society from someone who has shown himself to be dangerously insane. But you can't blame someone for being insane. Blame is the wrong word. Accountable is a better word.

[oskar]

these are an acceptable price to pay for freedom from absurd tyranny.

The assertion that guns protect you from tyranny is historically illiterate. There were more people against slavery than for it. They didn't rise up to stop slavery. They rose up to keep it tho... not to a huge success and not what you'd call fighting against tyranny. Millions of jews that were apprehended during WW2 were armed - many did not go down without a fight, but if you pin civilians against an organized army you get predictable results. Those that were disarmed in germany prior to the war: their guns didn't stop them from getting disarmed. The idea that you could rise up against a tyrannical US government in [currentyear] is criminally insane. What the fuck do you think you're going to do against a drone strike? You can't do fuck all against the US military. Never mind that the same people who entertain this childish fantasy of rising up against tyranny are the same people who sit idly by while the Trump administration is committing massive human rights violations at the border, pardoning convicted war criminals, escalating the conflict with Iran with the clear purpose of more colonialist wars, and looking to back a coup in Venezuela. You don't stop tyranny with guns, you stop it at its roots.

and what you claim to be upset about, untimely deaths, is a problem that you're not remotely directly addressing.

You can't tell me that you're not seeing the blatant false equivalency you're pulling here. Eating an unhealthy diet and shortening your lifespan by 10% is not the same as blasting your brains out because you had a depressive episode and there was a gun around.

There's a clear indication that having a gun makes hunting much more efficient.
There's a clear indication that multiple genocides have taken place in my lifetime.
There's a clear indication that ruling powers repeatedly exercise prejudice when applying lethal force all over the world and all throughout history.

I'm just quoting this to point out that these are just emotionally loaded non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Not my responsibility to prove you are talking out your ass. Your responsibility to prove you aren't.
You said this, "Every study ever done shows that guns completely fail at protecting you."
Now go ahead and prove that negative. Produce "every study" and show me how right you are.
Or admit that you made that up, were inventing "facts" to fit your narrative, and let's move on.

So either you were wasted out of your mind when you wrote this tripe or spoon hijacked your account. I asked you what you can show me that makes you believe that owning a gun makes you safer. I can show you some studies but I'd just link you the top 20 google results because there's nothing out there that supports your position. You're arguing purely from feelings. There's nothing to back your shit up, but you still choose to ridicule me for believing what every study shows time and time again: that owning a guns makes you less safe, both on an individual and collective level.

[oskar]

We're not in WWI. If it's a matter of the country doing imperialist shit or whatever they were doing in Iraq, they can suck it.

I'm real happy for you and imma let you finish, but WWI was the dumbest war ever fought. Even if the Iraq war was some colonialist bullshit that killed 200,000 civilians over a lie, there were some merits in toppling Hussain. WWI on the other hand was just pure and unbridled stupidity.

Morally, I wish I could agree with this. But I don't. The military trained him to kill. He then experienced extreme trauma, and couldn't come to terms with it. I think it's fair to say he was in a state of insanity. I'm not saying that's the same as a "free pass". When he lost his shit and did what he did, he should've been locked up in a secure place for mentally disturbed people, probably a specialist unit for soldiers with PTSD. You can still hold him responsible for his actions in the sense you protect society from someone who has shown himself to be dangerously insane. But you can't blame someone for being insane. Blame is the wrong word. Accountable is a better word.

I have a deeply rooted destain for police and military, but I'm not going to lay all the blame on any single individual. The problem is a lack of accountability coupled with group dynamics and fear.

[Poopadoop]

I'm real happy for you and imma let you finish, but WWI was the dumbest war ever fought. Even if the Iraq war was some colonialist bullshit that killed 200,000 civilians over a lie, there were some merits in toppling Hussain. WWI on the other hand was just pure and unbridled stupidity.

My point was that there's a big difference between being drafted into the army during a major conflict, where you have no choice really, and joining voluntarily when no real threat to your country exists.

And yeah, I've studied WWI and its origins were pretty complex. But what's undeniably true is that had any one of the belligerents made the right move at the right time instead of trying to out-3D chess each other, it could have been avoided. It was a series of fuckups committed by pretty much everyone that started that war.

1. Serbia not-very-secretly supporting terrorists in Bosnia that killed Franz Ferdinand.
2. Germany pushing Austria-Hungary to deliver an ultimatum to Serbia that Serbia couldn't possibly accept, when it should have suggested a more moderate tone.
3. Austria-Hungary kissing the Kaiser's butt by delivering said ultimatum, when it should have sent something more reasonable.
4. France sending its cabinet on a boat to St. Petersburg instead of keeping them around to deal with an obviously brewing crisis.
5. A-H attacking Serbia for only partially accepting the impossible ultimatum.
6. Russia mobilizing it's army not only against A-H but also against Germany, which could only provoke them.
7. Italy letting Germany and A-H think she would join them, when in reality she had no intention of doing so and should have said so, which might have cooled their heels a bit.
8. Britain letting Germany think it might remain neutral if Germany invaded Belgium, then sending an ultimatum after Germany invaded Belgium, when it should have made its position clear before the war started, which might have deterred Germany from attacking.
9. Germany having a system in place where mobilization of the troops could not be used as a threat but automatically led to war, where they should have had something more flexible, or only mobilized if she was attacked.

I have a deeply rooted destain for police and military, but I'm not going to blame any individual. The problem is a lack of accountability coupled with group dynamics and fear.

I'd be perfectly fine with a system that, if it didn't send people straight home to therapy after witnessing a horrific event, allowed them to claim insanity as a defense if/when they flipped. What I have a problem with is when the system does nothing but just kick them out of the army and send them home.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The assertion that guns protect you from tyranny is historically illiterate. [...]

Since you can't defeat tyranny, you shouldn't fight it? Is that your point, here?

Your assertion that fighting tyranny needs to end in overthrowing tyranny to be a moral choice seems to be missing the point entirely.

Can you think of any time when tyranny was overthrown by the aid of guns?

You can't tell me that you're not seeing the blatant false equivalency you're pulling here. Eating an unhealthy diet and shortening your lifespan by 10% is not the same as blasting your brains out because you had a depressive episode and there was a gun around.

I can and am.
The equivalency isn't false. Here's the reason why:
Your argument is that having access to guns is bad for quality of life, because of untimely deaths. If we look at the causes of untimely deaths, we can see the top causes. We can see those are medical causes, with heart disease being far and away the number 1 killer. We can read what medical professionals have to say about the causes and preventative implications therein.

We can see that gun violence isn't in the top 5. So addressing your concern about untimely deaths by focusing on a something that low on the list doesn't feel like you're being honest about your reasons for being against guns.

I'm just quoting this to point out that these are just emotionally loaded non-sequiturs that have nothing to do with what we're talking about.

I'm just quoting this to point out that you have double-standards on the topic, and that you're ignoring any and all reasons that go against your conclusion, despite the fact that many of them are very good reasons.

Oskar: "Guns are bad 'cause of all the untimely deaths they cause."
MMM: "Unhealthy foods, high in cholesterol, cause heart disease, the biggest contributor to untimely deaths."
Oskar: "I don't think self inflicted causes should be in the same category as outside causes."
MMM: "Gun deaths by non-suicide is a very small % of untimely deaths, less than 1/7 that of heart disease"
Oskar: "No, suicides stay in."
MMM: "Then cheeseburgers stay in."
Oskar: "You're making an emotional argument"
??
I'm not the one with a double-standard, here.

Oskar: "There's a clear indication that having a gun around massively increases the risk of suicide."
MMM: "There are other clear indications about guns, FYI"
Oskar: "emotional non sequitur"
??
I'm making clear points. You're the one with huge gaps in the leaps from symptom to treatment with total disregard to the 'unintended' consequences of your proposal.

So either you were wasted out of your mind when you wrote this tripe or spoon hijacked your account.

Calm down. Neither of these. I'm an intelligent person who disagrees with you.
I'm being respectful of your position, and of you as and intelligent person.
Please extend me the same courtesy.

FWIW, I'm sorry for the "talking out your ass" tone if that's what you're responding to. I don't really see why it's offensive, if I'm honest. The reason has already been stated. You made a spurious claim and then put in on my responsibility to disprove it. That's not how intelligent discourse works.

I asked you what you can show me that makes you believe that owning a gun makes you safer.

You didn't. Please reflect on that. You're claiming you did something that is plainly in the text record that never happened. (or show me the quote, and I'll eat my words and apologize.)
You're accusing me of being emotional, but it's you who is showing signs of injecting emotion into this conversation.

You've been fairly question mark-free in this conversation, FYI.
The only question mark in a post from you on this page is based on the false premise that I'm against preventing school shootings.
After all you know of me... do you think that was a rational assumption to make about what my position is?

Which of us is being emotional?

I can show you some studies but I'd just link you the top 20 google results because there's nothing out there that supports your position.

You're making assumptions, and I very much doubt you understand my position.

You're still claiming a negative. You're claiming there's no intelligent argument against your position. None.
That's a tall order. Proving a negative is not something science is prepared to do. It only takes 1 result to disprove a negative.
Or do you actually mean that you are prepared to discredit any and all results that do not fit your preconceived conclusion?

You're arguing purely from feelings. There's nothing to back your shit up, but you still choose to ridicule me for believing what every study shows time and time again: that owning a guns makes you less safe, both on an individual and collective level.

I've made a pretty strong, linear case for the reasons that I think my position in this is both consistent and rational.
I've also shown that your position has been non-linear, based on double-standards, and not directly addressing the problem which you claim to want to solve.

I've stated examples of why gun ownership should be a human right, IMO. The notion that any tool used to feed your family if properly used by an adult should be illegal is a tall order. You need to show that the danger it poses to society is much greater than the benefit to society.

Your argument focuses exclusively on the negative aspects of gun ownership to society. However, you ignore the relevance of those negative impacts against other problems with more extreme impacts, like the top 10 causes of premature death. You ignore the positive impacts of gun ownership, and you ignore the negative impacts of the path of legislation in which lethal force is exclusively controlled by oligarchy.


Not for nothing, but the luxury of living in a country free of guns is largely due to your lack of having been invaded much recently. That due to increased stability on the world scale, due in no small part to worldwide treaty organizations like the UN. The power of the UN is backed by American guns and bombs and drones. I'm not sure if there's a direct link, but I think it's well worth questioning if the sustained period of relative peace we've seen since WWII isn't almost entirely due to the existence of ever more powerful guns and bombs.

Would this sustained peace be possible if not for the firepower we command?
Your argument that civilians have no power to defend themselves when the drone strikes come is antithetical to your greater argument. It means that gun restrictions are already far too intense, and should be loosened. The point of the 2nd amendment was about ensuring the civilians had a fair shake at revolution should they deem it necessary.

[Poopadoop]

A lot of people get to old age before they get heart disease/cancer/ etc. Those are natural diseases that even people with healthy lifestyles get if they live long enough. It's hardly correct to consider those deaths 'untimely'.

A sixteen year old blowing their brains out is not in the same league as a 90 year old dying of heart disease.

Show me the sixteen year olds dying from cheeseburger stats if I'm wrong please, but:

Your arguments seem to go from 'there's more deadly things than guns to worry about' as if that makes guns safe, to 'guns are good for fighting tyranny', when no-one has used a gun to defend themselves from tyranny in the US for 250 years.

[Poopadoop]

Not for nothing, but the luxury of living in a country free of guns is largely due to your lack of having been invaded much recently. That due to increased stability on the world scale, due in no small part to worldwide treaty organizations like the UN. The power of the UN is backed by American guns and bombs and drones. I'm not sure if there's a direct link, but I think it's well worth questioning if the sustained period of relative peace we've seen since WWII isn't almost entirely due to the existence of ever more powerful guns and bombs.

Would this sustained peace be possible if not for the firepower we command?

It's the NATO governments that are keeping the peace, not the guy in Arizona packing a 9mm in his shorts.

Your argument that civilians have no power to defend themselves when the drone strikes come is antithetical to your greater argument. It means that gun restrictions are already far too intense, and should be loosened. The point of the 2nd amendment was about ensuring the civilians had a fair shake at revolution should they deem it necessary.

Nope, he's simply pointing out how absurd it is to argue that a firearm will protect you from a government that wants to repress you.

It's impossible to have a sufficient arsenal to take on the U.S. government, 2nd amendment or not. If your belief is that a civilian militia should be allowed to arm itself with tanks, drones, and jet fighters, then good luck raising the money for those. In that sense, your government is already a tyranny because it will never allow a group of its citizens to pose a credible military threat to its power.

[MadMojoMonkey]

A lot of people get to old age before they get heart disease/cancer/ etc. Those are natural diseases that even people with healthy lifestyles get if they live long enough. It's hardly correct to consider those deaths 'untimely'.

If this matters to you, then fine. It's not relevant to me from a national policy position.
A citizen is a citizen. Any discrimination, age based or otherwise, has no place in law, IMO.

A sixteen year old blowing their brains out is not in the same league as a 90 year old dying of heart disease.

Agreed. The 16 y/o wanted to die. That was a personal choice. I don't see why the person who chooses to die on purpose is the victim, there.
The 90 y/o has heart failure because he ate foods that the gov't told him were healthy, and that are harder to avoid than to find when eating at any restaurant, catered event, or neighborhood BBQ. He's sick because he's "normal."

What's your argument, here? That a suicidal 16 y/o is of more value to society than a 90 y/o with bad ticker? No other information needed?
That's not you, really.

Show me the sixteen year olds dying from cheeseburger stats if I'm wrong please, but

So your problem with guns is the immediacy? It's OK for the society to be slowly poisoned by an industry that knows what it's doing while blaming its customers?
That's much more cruel, IMO.

but:

Your arguments seem to go from 'there's more deadly things than guns to worry about' as if that makes guns safe, to 'guns are good for fighting tyranny', when no-one has used a gun to defend themselves from tyranny in the US for 250 years.

Try to separate my criticism of oskar's stated reasons for his position from my own reasons for my own position.

The "more deadly things to worry about" isn't my argument, at all. It's the lie in the position that you want fewer guns 'cause they cause too much death. It shows that position is not rationally based on the data at hand, but a personal opinion.

Oskar's position is that guns cause an unacceptable number of deaths. My rebuttal is that, while it'd be great if it was a lower number, it's really not that big of a number in relation to other causes of untimely deaths. My position is that if the goal is to prevent deaths, then there are far more effective ways to do so without the side effect of taking a tool from innocent people.

Some highlights of the reasons I support the notion that the right to lethal force is a human right. Note, this is not the reasons I think it's worth some significant restrictions. Its the reasons I think it's not all bad, perhaps that no matter how bad, there are benefits that cannot be outweighed:

There should be 0 gun abolition. I'm in favor of licensing and clearances for all sorts of equipment, guns and munitions are no different, IMO. I'm not opposed to regulation. I'm opposed to hard barriers. If you can afford it, and you don't have a record of violence or harm to others, then you can have it. If you misuse it, then you can't have it anymore.

There are other threats to life and livelihood than the gov't turning on us. If we put all our trust in "others" to keep us safe, what happens when they can't? What happens when the rule of law breaks down?

I have see a near constant stream of genocides during my lifetime and I bet plenty of those people getting slaughtered would have been super happy to be able to fight back. I bet those murdering fuckwads doing the slaughtering would have a harder time of it in every respect when they're getting shot back at.

Everyone in the world has a right to bear arms. It's not some specifically American thing. My position is that if you pretend that the reason you don't need a gun isn't because other people have guns on your behalf, then that's not correct. Also, 250 years? Closer to 150 since the civil war, abut the number isn't relevant.
Are you suggesting that the past X years of stability mean that there will be stability for all future years?

People still hunt for food. Even in America. You don't have to go far from the city to find people who hunt for at least 1/3 of their family's yearly meat supply. The statement that all guns are bad is so, so far from a reasonable statement as to be laughably off the table. You even allow hunting rifles in the UK, right? With regulation and permits?

While we are capable of great art and wondrous achievements, we, as humans, are also brutal, savage, and unconscionable. Worst of all, frequently unpredictable.

[Jack Sawyer]

Since you can't defeat tyranny, you shouldn't fight it? Is that your point, here?

Your assertion that fighting tyranny needs to end in overthrowing tyranny to be a moral choice seems to be missing the point entirely.

Can you think of any time when tyranny was overthrown by the aid of guns?


I can and am.
The equivalency isn't false. Here's the reason why:
Your argument is that having access to guns is bad for quality of life, because of untimely deaths. If we look at the causes of untimely deaths, we can see the top causes. We can see those are medical causes, with heart disease being far and away the number 1 killer. We can read what medical professionals have to say about the causes and preventative implications therein.

We can see that gun violence isn't in the top 5. So addressing your concern about untimely deaths by focusing on a something that low on the list doesn't feel like you're being honest about your reasons for being against guns.



I'm just quoting this to point out that you have double-standards on the topic, and that you're ignoring any and all reasons that go against your conclusion, despite the fact that many of them are very good reasons.

Oskar: "Guns are bad 'cause of all the untimely deaths they cause."
MMM: "Unhealthy foods, high in cholesterol, cause heart disease, the biggest contributor to untimely deaths."
Oskar: "I don't think self inflicted causes should be in the same category as outside causes."
MMM: "Gun deaths by non-suicide is a very small % of untimely deaths, less than 1/7 that of heart disease"
Oskar: "No, suicides stay in."
MMM: "Then cheeseburgers stay in."
Oskar: "You're making an emotional argument"
??
I'm not the one with a double-standard, here.

Oskar: "There's a clear indication that having a gun around massively increases the risk of suicide."
MMM: "There are other clear indications about guns, FYI"
Oskar: "emotional non sequitur"
??
I'm making clear points. You're the one with huge gaps in the leaps from symptom to treatment with total disregard to the 'unintended' consequences of your proposal.


Calm down. Neither of these. I'm an intelligent person who disagrees with you.
I'm being respectful of your position, and of you as and intelligent person.
Please extend me the same courtesy.

FWIW, I'm sorry for the "talking out your ass" tone if that's what you're responding to. I don't really see why it's offensive, if I'm honest. The reason has already been stated. You made a spurious claim and then put in on my responsibility to disprove it. That's not how intelligent discourse works.


You didn't. Please reflect on that. You're claiming you did something that is plainly in the text record that never happened. (or show me the quote, and I'll eat my words and apologize.)
You're accusing me of being emotional, but it's you who is showing signs of injecting emotion into this conversation.

The crux is that you somehow compare guns and cheeseburgers, because of deaths. It is a literal false analogy, because:

1) Cheeseburgers can feed as well, although poorly. You can also make healthier ones. Cheeseburgers were designed to be a delicious addition to eating. Guns are literally only designed to harm and kill.
2) A cheeseburger won't protect you from the government. Guns neither, as if you have an AK they have AA's and nukes. I guess that is a similarity between the two
3) Cheeseburgers are consumables, guns themselves are not. There have been many more cheeseburgers around in the history of mankind than guns, and many more keep getting added to the history of man by the day. Therefore, if cheeseburgers DO kill, and we can safely assume that all food items in excess do kill (excess water will kill you); by the sheer numbers that there have been in circulation compared with guns, the proper conclusion still has to be that cheeseburgers are safer than guns because of their rate
4) One person cannot directly harm another person with a cheeseburger (taking out deathly allergies etc). One person, in a fit of rage, can take out and have taken out entire schools with guns.

I can go on, but I guess please try to use a better comparison

You've been fairly question mark-free in this conversation, FYI.
The only question mark in a post from you on this page is based on the false premise that I'm against preventing school shootings.
After all you know of me... do you think that was a rational assumption to make about what my position is?

Which of us is being emotional?


You're making assumptions, and I very much doubt you understand my position.

You're still claiming a negative. You're claiming there's no intelligent argument against your position. None.
That's a tall order. Proving a negative is not something science is prepared to do. It only takes 1 result to disprove a negative.
Or do you actually mean that you are prepared to discredit any and all results that do not fit your preconceived conclusion?

School shootings are a uniquely American thing. It literally happens nowhere else. America is known to have the most guns per capita in the world. It's not a large leap to the logical conclusion.

Now they want to arm teachers, and teach them who to kill during a shooting. This is bizarre, for lack of a better word.

've made a pretty strong, linear case for the reasons that I think my position in this is both consistent and rational.
I've also shown that your position has been non-linear, based on double-standards, and not directly addressing the problem which you claim to want to solve.

I've stated examples of why gun ownership should be a human right, IMO. The notion that any tool used to feed your family if properly used by an adult should be illegal is a tall order. You need to show that the danger it poses to society is much greater than the benefit to society.

The only way to feed your family with a gun is by going out and commit crimes with it. This is obviously exactly what we want to avoid.

You "protect" by harming and killing would-be attackers. But this also requires split-second decision taking in assessing who is and who isn't an attacker and if the action requires escalation. The saying "you wouldn't take a knife to a gunfight" applies here. If an attacker tries to steal from you, does this give you the right to dish out capital punishments?

If neither the attacker nor the victim has guns, it's a much higher chance that both of them will keep their lives after the encounter. A life, once taken, cannot be given back.

I prefer to attack the social roots of the problem, which is usually poverty due to lack of opportunities. Free education and free healthcare would go towards this in strides, because of the simple fact that you will have less people in absolute dire straits; less need for the rich people to build moats around their castles too.

Your argument focuses exclusively on the negative aspects of gun ownership to society. However, you ignore the relevance of those negative impacts against other problems with more extreme impacts, like the top 10 causes of premature death. You ignore the positive impacts of gun ownership, and you ignore the negative impacts of the path of legislation in which lethal force is exclusively controlled by oligarchy.

You'd need access to tanks, F16's and nukes as well to compete with what the oligarchy controls. Basic guns are only used for the populace to kill each other.

Not for nothing, but the luxury of living in a country free of guns is largely due to your lack of having been invaded much recently. That due to increased stability on the world scale, due in no small part to worldwide treaty organizations like the UN. The power of the UN is backed by American guns and bombs and drones. I'm not sure if there's a direct link, but I think it's well worth questioning if the sustained period of relative peace we've seen since WWII isn't almost entirely due to the existence of ever more powerful guns and bombs.

Would this sustained peace be possible if not for the firepower we command?
Your argument that civilians have no power to defend themselves when the drone strikes come is antithetical to your greater argument. It means that gun restrictions are already far too intense, and should be loosened. The point of the 2nd amendment was about ensuring the civilians had a fair shake at revolution should they deem it necessary.

I guess it's because every single one of those premature deaths attributed to guns can be avoided by simply less or no guns.

Also, do tell that to the Afghans, the Pakistanis, the Yemenis, the Libyans, the Syrians, countless of other African nationals more, the Palestinians, the Salvadorians, the Hondurans, the Mexicans, the Colombians etc.

Just as with humans, nations are guilty of the same. When you have too many guns, you are inclined to use them. And then also sell them to the rest of the world, to increase conflicts and therefore demand for more guns.

[Jack Sawyer]

Just for context

But one statistic truly points out how unusual the problem is.

A couple of years ago, the Academy for Critical Incident Analysis collected data on school violence around the world. They took a broad look at incidents where someone was killed, or a murder was attempted and charted every one that had two or more victims. (Researchers left out “single homicides, off-campus homicides, killings caused by government actions, militaries, terrorists or militants.” So, incidents like this one, where a U.S. airstrike in Syria accidentally hit a school and market and killed 30, are not included.)

Between 2000 and 2010, it recorded 57 incidents in 36 countries.

Half those incidents — 28 — occurred in the United States.

That's right. In U.S. schools, there was as much violence as schools in:

Argentina
Australia
Azerbaijan
Belgium
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Brazil
Bulgaria
Canada
China
Denmark
England
Finland
France
German
Greece
Guatemala
Hungary
India
Israel
Italy
Japan
Kenya
Latvia
Netherlands
Northern Ireland
Norway
Poland
Russian Federation
Scotland
South Africa
South Korea
Swaziland
Thailand
Trinidad and Tobago
Yemen
Combined.

That's all the more shocking when you consider that in 2010, the United States had about 309 million residents. The population of the other countries totaled 3.8 billion. It's worth noting, too, that 13 of those countries had never suffered a school massacre.

Violence in U.S. schools is much more likely be carried out using a gun, too. As Quartz explained about the study:

In the vast majority of U.S. killings, perpetrators used guns. By comparison, China — with the second-greatest number of incidents — saw 10 mass killings, but none involving firearms. Germany saw three mass shootings; Finland saw two. Thirteen other countries each saw one incident with at least one person being wounded or killed; in the rest nobody was reported as hurt.

It's literally out of control.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.eb99e0cfacb0

[oskar]

Can you think of any time when tyranny was overthrown by the aid of guns?

In cases where the militia has comparable firepower to the government, it happens all the time. In any reasonably established country, by definition: no. A government is supposed to have the monopoly on violence. And in no country is the gap bigger than in the US. I can't find super useful numbers, but arms sales of US gun manufacturers are said to total to about 30 billion, but that includes exports. US annual military spending: 700 billion. You do the math there. You might as well throw a rock.

We can see that gun violence isn't in the top 5.

It's in the top 2 for CHILDREN!

Poop made my point on the supposed double standard. First of all, you're pivoting. We were talking about child deaths. We came from school shooting, and you pull up with statistics for all age groups because it's more convenient. People die of something. Not every heart attack is related to diet. Diet is irrelevant if we're talking about 0-21yo's.

On the guns & safety argument: You got to be fucking kidding me. Are we really doing this? You think you're being mr smartypants over there reducing this to a semantic argument because I was being hyperbolic? And then you're asking me to expand you "the same courtesy"? - no, thx I'm all good over here you uppity cunt.

https://www.kqed.org/science/1916209...search-says-no
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...vidence-shows/
https://pediatrics.aappublications.o...41/3/e20172600
https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2...e-results-from

I'm just searching for studies on gun ownership and safety. This is the consensus. This is not shit I have to dig for. This is all top 5 search results. Why do I have to link you this? You are familiar with science. What do you do if you're trying to find out what the scientific consensus is? Do you look at peer review journals and then dig through the studies or do you go on the Bob's Gun Shop message boards to find a gif from 2002 that supports your feelings?

[Poopadoop]

What's your argument, here? That a suicidal 16 y/o is of more value to society than a 90 y/o with bad ticker? No other information needed?
That's not you, really.

You're right it's not, but nice non-sequitur anyways.

The argument was that a gun is a potential threat to both the 16 and the 90 year old; heart disease is only a potential threat to the latter.

So your problem with guns is the immediacy? It's OK for the society to be slowly poisoned by an industry that knows what it's doing while blaming its customers?
That's much more cruel, IMO.

They're completely separate issues. Dealing with one doesn't mean you have to ignore the other.

My position is that if you pretend that the reason you don't need a gun isn't because other people have guns on your behalf, then that's not correct.

It's a bit hard to unpack all the double negatives here, but my position is that I'm ok with my government having the monopoly on guns because a) It's a stable country with no remotely recent history of being interested in tryannizing its citizens; b) I don't have any way of overpowering them with a handgun or AK47 even if they were tyrannical; and c) I don't want some mentally ill person shooting me in a dispute over a traffic space, or going into a school and shooting it up.

Also, 250 years? Closer to 150 since the civil war, abut the number isn't relevant.

So the confederates were rebelling against a tyranny that wanted to free the slaves? Wut?

Are you suggesting that the past X years of stability mean that there will be stability for all future years?

I'm suggesting it's irrelevant since having a handgun or AK47 or both won't do you much good against the US army.

People still hunt for food. Even in America. You don't have to go far from the city to find people who hunt for at least 1/3 of their family's yearly meat supply. The statement that all guns are bad is so, so far from a reasonable statement as to be laughably off the table. You even allow hunting rifles in the UK, right? With regulation and permits?

You don't need a handgun or assault rifle to hunt for food. A simple rifle or shotgun will do. It's also hard to carry those around in your pocket like you can a handgun.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The crux is that you somehow compare guns and cheeseburgers, because of deaths. It is a literal false analogy, because:

1) Cheeseburgers can feed as well, although poorly. You can also make healthier ones. Cheeseburgers were designed to be a delicious addition to eating. Guns are literally only designed to harm and kill.
2) A cheeseburger won't protect you from the government. Guns neither, as if you have an AK they have AA's and nukes. I guess that is a similarity between the two
3) Cheeseburgers are consumables, guns themselves are not. There have been many more cheeseburgers around in the history of mankind than guns, and many more keep getting added to the history of man by the day. Therefore, if cheeseburgers DO kill, and we can safely assume that all food items in excess do kill (excess water will kill you); by the sheer numbers that there have been in circulation compared with guns, the proper conclusion still has to be that cheeseburgers are safer than guns because of their rate
4) One person cannot directly harm another person with a cheeseburger (taking out deathly allergies etc). One person, in a fit of rage, can take out and have taken out entire schools with guns.

I can go on, but I guess please try to use a better comparison

It's not a false analogy, and I've clearly connected the dots.
1) guns feed people, too. Hunting is still a primary method by which people provide meat for their families. Cheeseburgers can be made more healthy. Significant point you just made there. Why, then, aren't they? Why are people disproportionately accepting of this fact, and at the same time disproportionately critical of guns?
2) This is why there should be fewer restrictions on civilian weaponry, not more.
3) This is all nonsense. IDK why you think any of that matters. FYI, water can't kill you from drinking it. Inhaling it, sure.
4) I can directly harm you with my fist, whether or not it's holding a cheeseburger (OK, I probably can't, 'cause I'm a wimp, but if I got a lucky punch in, it could be fatal, nonetheless). The fact that a thing can kill if used with intent to kill is not an argument that a thing is unfit for public use.

School shootings are a uniquely American thing. It literally happens nowhere else. America is known to have the most guns per capita in the world. It's not a large leap to the logical conclusion.

It is when your conclusion is, "Even though these tragedies are caused by a tiny, tiny percent of murderous people, the only logical conclusion is to treat the 99+% of people as though they, too are murderers."

Is that really the ONLY solution you can come up with to help alleviate the presence of school shootings? Not increased security at schools? Not increased manpower and infrastructure to keep the kids safe from murderers? The ONLY solution is to vilify the entire populace as kid murderers?

The backbone of American jurisprudence is that it's better to let a guilty person walk free than to put an innocent person in prison.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Where's the proof that all those non-criminal gun owners are a danger to society? Where's the indication that those people need their rights curtailed?

Now they want to arm teachers, and teach them who to kill during a shooting. This is bizarre, for lack of a better word.

It's a stupid, terrible idea and it will never happen.

The only way to feed your family with a gun is by going out and commit crimes with it. This is obviously exactly what we want to avoid.

SMH. Just c'mon, Jack. You've heard of hunting, right?
If this is the level of intellect you bring to your side of the argument, then there's little point in me continuing to lay out a set of logical, coherent principles which illustrate that not only are guns good for America, but that you should be outraged at the fact that you aren't allowed to have them in your country.

You "protect" by harming and killing would-be attackers. But this also requires split-second decision taking in assessing who is and who isn't an attacker and if the action requires escalation. The saying "you wouldn't take a knife to a gunfight" applies here. If an attacker tries to steal from you, does this give you the right to dish out capital punishments?

In almost all states, there is a requirement to make every reasonable attempt to de-escalate the situation and remove the need for violence if possible. I don't know the exact wording. It's not all states. Specifically Florida has "stand your ground" laws which are ludicrous and barbaric and put the onus of moral application of law into untrained vigilantes.

IMO, the only justification for use of civilian use of lethal force is to prevent criminal use of lethal force.

If neither the attacker nor the victim has guns, it's a much higher chance that both of them will keep their lives after the encounter. A life, once taken, cannot be given back.

Are there unicorns in this story, too? Are you forgetting swords and bows and arrows?
Humans are prone to violence. Guns do not cause this. Guns are merely the current state of our ancient quest to find ever better ways to throw rocks at people we don't like.

I prefer to attack the social roots of the problem, which is usually poverty due to lack of opportunities. Free education and free healthcare would go towards this in strides, because of the simple fact that you will have less people in absolute dire straits; less need for the rich people to build moats around their castles too.

EXACTLY! NOW YOU'RE TALKING!

You'd need access to tanks, F16's and nukes as well to compete with what the oligarchy controls. Basic guns are only used for the populace to kill each other.

The first part supports my point, not yours.
Just stop with the "guns are only for murder" argument. It's nonsense and you know it.

I guess it's because every single one of those premature deaths attributed to guns can be avoided by simply less or no guns.

You're way smarter than this.
Sure, in the fantasy world where humans never wanted to throw rocks at people they don't like, then we can join hands and sing Kumbaya. The notion that if there weren't "guns" there wouldn't be violence or murder is antithetical to all the historical evidence.

Slings, bows and arrows, etc. Just variations on a theme.
You can't even pretend to tell me that you're such a peaceful and passive person that you've never had a thought of violence come up your mind. You're no different than the rest of us. It's just that most of us are civilized and choose not to act out on those barbaric impulses. What about the people that don't have the same restraint?
You don't want to protect yourself from them? You want to trust some other people to be your protectors? So much that you will forego your own means of protection? So much that you build a society where people live in the dream that there's no need for that protection? So much so that you're now arguing that the protection itself may not be needed?

Also, do tell that to the Afghans, the Pakistanis, the Yemenis, the Libyans, the Syrians, countless of other African nationals more, the Palestinians, the Salvadorians, the Hondurans, the Mexicans, the Colombians etc.

Not sure your point. They are getting bullied by nations with more firepower? Do you think that's anything but "normal" behavior for humans? Do you think human have ever historically had a time where this was not the way gov'ts are made and sustained?

Do you think the proposition that you can change human nature to not turn to violence is more reasonable than accepting who/what we are and acting in the rational acknowledgement that we are not "morally good" animals, when taken as a whole.

I think the notion that oppressed people are oppressed because their oppressors have more guns is the wrong way to look at things. The oppressed are oppressed because they lack the means to fight back.

Just as with humans, nations are guilty of the same. When you have too many guns, you are inclined to use them. And then also sell them to the rest of the world, to increase conflicts and therefore demand for more guns.

EXACTLY. You can never make weapons go away. NEVER. Conflict is part of who we are. Violence is a trait we adhere to all too often.

Living in denial of human nature cannot be the best way forward. Ignoring that we are savage, brutal creatures cannot lead us to be less savage, less brutal.

[oskar]

It's not just a false analogy, it's a biblical chimera of logical fallacies. I'm not sure if there even is a european country where you can't walk into a gun store at age 18 and walk out with a hunting rifle. Hunting rifles are generally not included in gun bans.

The most important reason it doesn't help your argument: you can do both. Yeah it's bad that people eat unhealthy diets, but there's nothing connecting the two. You're arguing about nothing. Yes, unhealthy diets are bad. So what! It means nothing. Gun related child fatalities are still #2 in the US and off the list in other countries. There's no connection.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're moderately to extremely out of touch with the conversation we're having. Please go review what was said, by whom, in what order.

I didn't bring up children, you did. That's your pivot.

I provided the statistics I found to show perspective at how little of an issue gun deaths actually are on the national scale. I didn't bring up children at all.
You set the bar on that to exclude self-inflicted outcomes. Fine by me. I'm not compelled by these stats for my opinion, they are stats central to your opinion.
Then, you un-excluded self-inflicted outcomes in one particular place where it suits your agenda.
I'm calling that spade a spade. That's a double-standard.

You brought up children as though it's OK to murder someone older on the mere basis that they haven't died, yet.
That makes no sense to me from any moral or legal perspective, but if it's your opinion, that's fine. My personal opinions are not affected by your adherence to this argument. It looks like you are picking arbitrary circumstances to make what you already decided was a problem look bigger than it is, in perspective of other, similar problems.

America spends a lot on military weapons. That means Americans civilians have a greater need than any other nation in the world to have access to adequate firepower to combat that. Just because things are stable now, that doesn't mean they'll always be stable.

On the guns & safety argument: You got to be fucking kidding me. Are we really doing this? You think you're being mr smartypants over there reducing this to a semantic argument because I was being hyperbolic? And then you're asking me to expand you "the same courtesy"? - no, thx I'm all good over here you uppity cunt.

I'm officially warning you that if you continue to insult any FTR members or mods, you will be banned. The rules are clear. This is over the line.

I've been respectful of both you and your ideas. I've challenged your ideas as they don't align with my own world-view, but I've never challenged that you are an intelligent person whom means well and is honest in this conversation. If you can't hold yourself to the same standard, then no one is compelling you to participate in this conversation.

If you choose to participate in any conversation on FTR, it is incumbent upon you to do so in a respectful manner.

Why do I have to link you this? You are familiar with science. What do you do if you're trying to find out what the scientific consensus is? Do you look at peer review journals and then dig through the studies or do you go on the Bob's Gun Shop message boards to find a gif from 2002 that supports your feelings?

You said this:

Every study ever done shows that guns completely fail at protecting you.

You didn't say, "the top 5 results on google agree with me" If that's what you mean by me making a semantic argument, then I agree.
You said something that cannot be affirmed. You used semantics which cannot fit in an intelligent conversation.
There's no way you could produce "every study ever done." There's no way you could have read "every study ever done." You made an unprovable, emotionally-based assertion.
All I'm asking is that you re-phrase your assertion to one that can reasonably be affirmed or refuted.

[MadMojoMonkey]

You're right it's not, but nice non-sequitur anyways.

The argument was that a gun is a potential threat to both the 16 and the 90 year old; heart disease is only a potential threat to the latter.

Thank you. I misunderstood your point.
(Asking a question is not a non-sequitur. I was asking for clarity.)

The causes of heart disease happen over decades and that just because the slow poison has had longer to do its thing, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a killer until the last couple of years.

They're completely separate issues. Dealing with one doesn't mean you have to ignore the other.

I never said that.
I said if you're upset about the untimely deaths caused by guns, that you should be about 15x as upset at the food industries that sell us poison and blames us for consuming it.
If you're not, then that strikes me as an irrational position.
Because while I agree that they are completely separate issues when presented as you did. When presented as leading causes of untimely deaths, then they're not remotely different issues. While they have very different roots, and very different remedies, that's not the point.

The point is if someone's reason to argue in favor of more gun control comes down to untimely deaths caused by guns, then they're really picking a niche issue about untimely deaths.
What makes it all sinister is that they're proposed solution is to criminalize million of non-violent people.
If it's really about guns, and not about control, then this argument does nothing for that claim. This argument is about controlling people, even people who've done nothing wrong.

Again, this is nothing to do with my argument in favor of fewer gun restrictions. It merely shows the lie that people who get all bent out of shape over gun control are ignoring far more pressing matters which have more direct impact on the reason those people claim to be in favor of gun control. I mean... my point isn't to deal with either. I would no sooner support regulating the sale of cheese than of guns.

It's a bit hard to unpack all the double negatives here, but my position is that I'm ok with my government having the monopoly on guns because a) It's a stable country with no remotely recent history of being interested in tryannizing its citizens; b) I don't have any way of overpowering them with a handgun or AK47 even if they were tyrannical; and c) I don't want some mentally ill person shooting me in a dispute over a traffic space, or going into a school and shooting it up.

a) If you want to put faith in the current stability to be a prophecy of eternal stability, then that's fine with me.
What's not fine is when you say that because of your faith, that other people must do what you say, even though they disagree with you.

b)This argument is still in favor of reducing civilian weapon restrictions, not increasing them.

c) I totally agree with this very personal sentiment. I just disagree that it should have any bearing on national law. I don't think it's acceptable for 99+% of the people to have their rights reduced over bad behavior of less than 1% of the people. I don't accept that the only or even the best way to address the very personal concern we share is by reducing rights and liberties.

So the confederates were rebelling against a tyranny that wanted to free the slaves? Wut?

Yeeessss..? Among other things.
I feel like this is a trick question. What do you think the civil war was about?

I'm suggesting it's irrelevant since having a handgun or AK47 or both won't do you much good against the US army.

I'm waiting for you to realize that this is perfectly antithetical to an argument in favor of restricting civilian access to weapons of war.

You don't need a handgun or assault rifle to hunt for food. A simple rifle or shotgun will do. It's also hard to carry those around in your pocket like you can a handgun.

So you agree that the argument that "guns are bad, m'kay" is incomplete at best?
That's a start.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It's not just a false analogy, it's a biblical chimera of logical fallacies.

If the guns to food chimera is bugging you, then maybe drop the initial statement that guns are bad for untimely deaths.
They're not. They do cause some high-profile incidents, but looking at the statistical big picture, they're not a big deal.

I'm not sure if there even is a european country where you can't walk into a gun store at age 18 and walk out with a hunting rifle. Hunting rifles are generally not included in gun bans.

So "guns" aren't the problem, then. I'd never think you'd come out and admit it. At least some guns, in some hands are not a problem.
Guns have practical uses. Guns are not merely for murdering humans. Guns are tools of livelihood.
Phew. We're getting somewhere.

Can you accept that guns are also tools of recreation? That most gun owners use their guns exclusively at firing ranges? Those people do not carry guns with them around town. They're simply a fun hobby that doubles as maybe a way to defend their loved ones if shit hits the fan.

Can you accept that this is the vast majority of gun owners? Non-violent. Non-criminal. Non-school-shooter-uppers.
The argument to increase gun restrictions vilifies all of those people as criminals, or idiots who will shoot you over a perceived slight in traffic.

***
How about, rather than insisting on your own opinions, you actually think about why I am against gun regulations.
For the most part, I don't deny that there are a lot of negative outcomes of widespread gun ownership. I'm not sure that you believe that about me.
Where we differ is in how to respond to those tragedies.

IMO, blaming the guns is a misdirection. These problems are much older than guns.
People are violent, whether they have guns or not.

Putting the monopoly on violence into the hands of a ruling class may be fine in the short-term, but the ruling class cannot be trusted generation after generation. Shit happens. Bad people get into power, and corrupt the system to make more room for more bad people and fewer good people over time. The arrow points back the other direction very seldom, and often when it does, it requires a violent overthrow by good people fighting bad powers.

The most important reason it doesn't help your argument: you can do both. Yeah it's bad that people eat unhealthy diets, but there's nothing connecting the two. You're arguing about nothing. Yes, unhealthy diets are bad. So what! It means nothing. Gun related child fatalities are still #2 in the US and off the list in other countries. There's no connection.

If you're arguing that guns are bad 'cause they cause premature deaths (which you, Oskar, are arguing. Correct me if I'm wrong), then there are much bigger fish to fry in that category.
It's no part of my argument in the slightest.
The only reason I'm still on about it is because it illustrates the lie in your position.

If you're really against deaths caused by guns, then there are at least 10 other things that you should be at least as upset about.
Top of the list is heart disease, caused by eating foods high in cholesterol (among other causes, but this is the leading cause, AFAIK).
If you're not remotely upset about those things, then the reason you're upset about guns is not about the deaths they cause, but something else.
What is that something else?

You're the one who seems to have an ageist position on evaluating how bad it is when someone dies based solely on their age.
I draw no distinction. A citizen is a citizen, their age is irrelevant to the rights and protections they have under the law.

[Poopadoop]

Thank you. I misunderstood your point.
(Asking a question is not a non-sequitur. I was asking for clarity.)

Ok, fine.

The causes of heart disease happen over decades and that just because the slow poison has had longer to do its thing, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a killer until the last couple of years.

Honestly, take it somewhere else. No-one cares about heart disease in a debate over gun control. You might as well say 'but, climate change' or 'but, Hillary's emails'

I said if you're upset about the untimely deaths caused by guns, that you should be about 15x as upset at the food industries that sell us poison and blames us for consuming it.

Let's say I am upset about the food industry (and frankly I am). There's a lot of other things I'm upset about to. I haven't stopped to rank them or prioritise which one to talk about first.

Let's also say that I can see a fairly straightforward solution to gun deaths in America that I can't see for dealing with the food industry, teen drug use, or a myriad of other issues, and so it's easier for me to argue for what I know has worked repeatedly in other countries regarding gun control than for something I don't have much idea about how to fix.

Again, it's an interesting topic but it's not the topic we're on right now. Maybe start another thread if you have some ideas about how to deal with the food industry and other harmful things.

Because while I agree that they are completely separate issues when presented as you did. When presented as leading causes of untimely deaths, then they're not remotely different issues. While they have very different roots, and very different remedies, that's not the point.

The point is to focus the debate into one about gun control and not tangential issues that try to change the argument into something it isn't.

The point is if someone's reason to argue in favor of more gun control comes down to untimely deaths caused by guns, then they're really picking a niche issue about untimely deaths.

Fine. Then let's talk abut the niche issue of gun control. Maybe you can start other threads about these other issues - just so we can keep things organised.

What makes it all sinister is that they're proposed solution is to criminalize million of non-violent people.

'sinister' and 'criminalize' are quite loaded and, I would argue, inapt terms to use here. The proposed solution is to restrict the sale and ownership of certain kinds of firearms. The motivations are to reduce unnecessary deaths, nothing more or less.

If it's really about guns, and not about control, then this argument does nothing for that claim. This argument is about controlling people, even people who've done nothing wrong.

Most laws are about controlling people who've done nothing wrong. We have laws against owning certain poisons, even for people who would never dream of using a poison to kill someone.

If your argument is you shouldn't take handguns and assault rifles away from people who've never shot anyone, then by that logic I should be able to buy cocaine legally as long as I promise not to snort it (except in self-defense), but only to take it out, clean it, and look at it once in a while.

And your arguments for why they should have guns seem to boil down to archaic laws from hundreds of years ago that have little relevance now (assuming we agree that gun control is not a blanket ban on all firearms but restricted to handguns, assault rifles, and other non-hunting firearms).

Again, this is nothing to do with my argument in favor of fewer gun restrictions. It merely shows the lie that people who get all bent out of shape over gun control are ignoring far more pressing matters which have more direct impact on the reason those people claim to be in favor of gun control. I mean... my point isn't to deal with either. I would no sooner support regulating the sale of cheese than of guns.

But - for the last time - the very last time - we're not talking about where people's priorities should lie. That's a completely tangential issue.

a) If you want to put faith in the current stability to be a prophecy of eternal stability, then that's fine with me.

Eternity is a long ways away. It's possible that someday the UK gov't will start tyrannizing its population. But my first thought if and when that happens won't be 'damn I wish I had a handgun or AK47 so I could shoot one of the soldiers who comes to take me to work in the salt mines before I get killed by the rest of his battalion. That'll teach them to tyrranize me!'

I also prefer to live in the real, present world rather than some hypothetical future. And in the real, present world people die needlessly by guns in the US, and much more than in other civilized countries.

What's not fine is when you say that because of your faith, that other people must do what you say, even though they disagree with you.

So why is it happening?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/243797/...-gun-laws.aspx

b)This argument is still in favor of reducing civilian weapon restrictions, not increasing them.

As I said before, it's obvious that even with no restrictions on civilian arsenals, you can't possibly compete with the gov't in terms of force. Simply having the option of coughing up a billion dollars for a Stealth fighter is not going to change that if you dont have a billion dollars handy.

c) I totally agree with this very personal sentiment. I just disagree that it should have any bearing on national law. I don't think it's acceptable for 99+% of the people to have their rights reduced over bad behavior of less than 1% of the people. I don't accept that the only or even the best way to address the very personal concern we share is by reducing rights and liberties.

Do you have a better solution?

It's only by choice that the US has made civilian gun ownership a right. And, if you wanted to, like other countries you could change the laws to make it a privelege rather than a right.

Moreover, the 2nd amendment was passed at a time when a guy with a musket could compete with a soldier armed in a similar fashion. For it to serve its original purpose today, civilians would have to spend more money than they'll ever have to be able to compete.

Yeeessss..? Among other things.
I feel like this is a trick question. What do you think the civil war was about?

It's universally agreed it was largely over slavery, and perhaps more generally the question of whether individual states should have the right to keep it as an institution, or whether the feds could apply an anti-slavery law universally.

So, 150 years ago, some states (not individuals but their elected officials) rebelled against a federal gov't that was leading the nation towards the abolition of a brutal and immoral institution. I don't see how this is a good argument against gun control, unless you think the South was on the moral high ground in wanting to keep slavery.

I'm waiting for you to realize that this is perfectly antithetical to an argument in favor of restricting civilian access to weapons of war.

And I'm waiting for you to admit how absurd it is to argue that civilians should have the same access to a Stealth figher jet that the gov't does.

So you agree that the argument that "guns are bad, m'kay" is incomplete at best?
That's a start.

My argument, which aligns fairly well with Oskar's I think, is that gun control laws are useful in reducing unnecessary deaths from guns.

Your arguments, if I understand them correctly, are a) 'defend self from tyranny'; and b) 'but you can own a gun without using it to kill someone'.

My counter to these is that a) is absurd because of the development of modern weapons; and b) hunting rifles and shotguns are fine, but ownership of hanguns and assault weapons should be strongly restricted.

[Poopadoop]

I mean, come on.

This is FUCKED.

[Poopadoop]

It's literally out of control.

Your data are waaaaay outdated. Here's some more recent numbers:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/u...rnd/index.html

[OngBonga]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-eur...eporting-story

I have no idea what is going on here, but I think the moral of the story is "don't fuck with German women".

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't care about the food argument. It's a prop to illustrate that there are double-standards on the topic.
I've said that numerous times. I've also stated that my position is complicated and has plenty of arguments for and against. I land with the most weight on the against gun control side.
In any post where I mentioned the lie that is phrasing gun control to be about loss of human life, I've presented other reasons why it's bigger and more important than that.

Whether I can afford a stealth fighter jet and whether I have a right to own one are different topics. I agree that the notion that, on a firepower basis, the citizens of the US could stand up to a totalitarian state is laughable. My answer is that it's already a huge problem and the argument that we should just ignore it and make it as bad as possible is not appealing to me. My argument is that making people less able to provide for their own livelihoods is immoral.

So keep waiting for that. If anyone has a right to own it, then anyone else should have a right. Some elite group getting to parse out who is allowed and who is not doesn't sound like a long-term sustainable way to go.


It's not necessarily about protecting against the US gov't, though. It's about what happens when the US gov't can't or wont protect us?
It's about acknowledging that humans, as a whole, are savage and unpredictable.
It's about self-sufficiency and not relying on outsiders to solve a problem that will have more people dead before the cavalry can swoop in and bring justice.

I'm not promoting vigilante justice. I'm saying that violent crimes happen all the time and that having any edge to protect yourself and loved ones in the event that you are the victim of such an attack is an inalienable human right.


The argument that guns cause deaths is so disingenuous. Just about everything causes deaths. Guns are glorified in media and culture, so big surprise that guns show up when someone wants to pretend their criminal intent is some kind of hero show.

Cars cause a lot of deaths. Should people have the right to drive cars?
Power tools cause deaths. What about those?
People drown in kiddie pools. Should those be illegal, too?

The problem isn't that people have the ability to kill other people in easy ways. Human savagery is the root of the problem, not whatever tool the savage grabs at hand to commit their crime. This has been around longer than guns.


The solutions to keeping schools safe is to have better security at schools. The problem isn't that a wacko with a gun got in there. The problem is that the wacko was in there. Whether or not they were armed, they shouldn't be there.
The solution to suicide is to not call that person a victim. They made their own choice. Better solutions would be to ramp up the psychological staff in high schools across the land because I suppose that the vast majority of teenagers whom have occasional suicidal thoughts do not struggle with that throughout the rest of their adult lives. We need to specifically target the people at risk, not blame the tool they chose to accomplish the task.

What are the other things you suggest are problems with guns, again?
Something worthy of the degradation of human right to have the ability to defend one's self and family from harm?
To me, that's a much taller order than can be justified by "<10% of deaths are caused by this"


Yes, the civil war was over slavery, and the side against such barbarism won out in the end. Just 'cause they were wrong didn't mean they had no right to defend their beliefs. When that defense became about defending from the national gov't, there they were.
Slavery is a blight on our species, and the South was wrong about it. They still had every right to defend their wrongness and try to fight for it. The national gov't swooping in and saying, "Nah... you can't leave... you're ours, bitches" was pretty wrong, too. They had no right. It was a cessation. That means the jurisdiction of the North was gone.
I'm glad that slavery ostensibly ended there, and I wouldn't trade that for anything but a better solution with faster results.
Still... the South was invaded by a hostile gov't. One that was their own gov't until just a few weeks prior.

Still... genocides are an ongoing problem for humans. I'm not compelled to believe that the cozy place we've carved for ourselves today will remain so indefinitely. Hopefully, there never comes a time when I have to use a gun to defend myself. When the time comes, though... it is everyone's human right to bear arms in the defense of their self and their family.

[Jack Sawyer]

Mojo,

I don't have time right now to go point by point over all of your stuff, I'll try to do the highlights only. Here goes:

- You CAN die of drinking too much water. It's called hyponatremia.

Can you accept that this is the vast majority of gun owners? Non-violent. Non-criminal. Non-school-shooter-uppers.
The argument to increase gun restrictions vilifies all of those people as criminals, or idiots who will shoot you over a perceived slight in traffic.

One law-abiding couple's baby finds the gun hidden in a drawer, and kills him/herself with it. That was one preventable death and mourning.

That same baby will eat a cheeseburger and be fine. Maybe in 40 years he or she will stop eating the damn cheeseburgers. Maybe he or she will take up crossfit to burn off the calories. Tons of options.

One pull of the trigger though, and there wil be no future for that baby. That is the problem.

This is why you can't compare cheeseburgers to handguns. They are not the same thing.

IMO, blaming the guns is a misdirection. These problems are much older than guns.
People are violent, whether they have guns or not.

This is my entire arguyment. Thank you for making it. Now, a violent person with a knife or an actual hunting rifle will do, all things being equal, less damage than a violent person with an AR15/AK47/Micro SMG or even a handgun.

Also, IMHO this is a classic situation in which some spoil it for all.

So "guns" aren't the problem, then. I'd never think you'd come out and admit it. At least some guns, in some hands are not a problem.
Guns have practical uses. Guns are not merely for murdering humans. Guns are tools of livelihood.
Phew. We're getting somewhere.

Guns don't kill people (yet, the drones are coming). People kill people. But why make it easier for people to kill people if they want to do so?

Can you accept that guns are also tools of recreation? That most gun owners use their guns exclusively at firing ranges? Those people do not carry guns with them around town. They're simply a fun hobby that doubles as maybe a way to defend their loved ones if shit hits the fan.

An argument can be made that an electric chair is also a "tool of recreation".

The Bear Jew would collect Nazi scalps as a hobby.

Pick up a video game or some aikido lessons instead. YOu can substitute with a better one.

[Jack Sawyer]

It is when your conclusion is, "Even though these tragedies are caused by a tiny, tiny percent of murderous people, the only logical conclusion is to treat the 99+% of people as though they, too are murderers."

The innocent pay for the sins of the guilty, sadly.

Is that really the ONLY solution you can come up with to help alleviate the presence of school shootings? Not increased security at schools? Not increased manpower and infrastructure to keep the kids safe from murderers? The ONLY solution is to vilify the entire populace as kid murderers?

This proble, by all measures, is uniquely American

And it's somehow even more out of control, as poop linked.
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/21/u...rnd/index.html

How else can that be combatted?

The backbone of American jurisprudence is that it's better to let a guilty person walk free than to put an innocent person in prison.
Innocent until proven guilty.
Where's the proof that all those non-criminal gun owners are a danger to society? Where's the indication that those people need their rights curtailed?

Hmm, are you being charged time for having a gun?

The problem isn't the gun themselves. It's gun deaths. That's the cruxz of the argument.

A society with less guns and more restrictive gun laws historically has less gun deaths. Simple.

Less gun deaths means also less wrongful deaths.

It's a stupid, terrible idea and it will never happen.

All of it is stupid. Including the fact that this is being seriously discussed instead of banning the fucking guns.

SMH. Just c'mon, Jack. You've heard of hunting, right?
If this is the level of intellect you bring to your side of the argument, then there's little point in me continuing to lay out a set of logical, coherent principles which illustrate that not only are guns good for America, but that you should be outraged at the fact that you aren't allowed to have them in your country.

Try hunting in downtown Manhattan.

Also, try hunting with a Beretta 9mm.

Are there unicorns in this story, too? Are you forgetting swords and bows and arrows?
Humans are prone to violence. Guns do not cause this. Guns are merely the current state of our ancient quest to find ever better ways to throw rocks at people we don't like.

They are prone to violence, and therefore we have to make it easier for them to commist said violence they are prone too.

There is also the proliferation of guns argument. In a nutshell, everybody will eventually have to be armed because everyone else is armed. The gun lobby salivates at this opportunity for business.

Just stop with the "guns are only for murder" argument. It's nonsense and you know it.

There is a saying somewhere, goes something like this; once you pull out a gun, be ready to use it.

Again, you may have had the best intentions, but still get a headshot in. Once the bullet is used, you can't take it back. That's one of my main arguments as to WHY no guns.

You're way smarter than this.
Sure, in the fantasy world where humans never wanted to throw rocks at people they don't like, then we can join hands and sing Kumbaya. The notion that if there weren't "guns" there wouldn't be violence or murder is antithetical to all the historical evidence.

Here is the main issue:

Facts back my position: in guns with strict gun laws, you have less gun deaths. If you give a child a toy and then the child proceeds to destroy all the expensive china in the house, you have to take the toy away from the child, in part for his own good (he may cut himself upo with the china) but also for trying to keep your house intact.

Graph after graph shows that specifically the gun violence is out of control in the US. Se, whatever you have in place right now DOES NOT WORK. YOu then have to at least take a measure which has shown to be effective elsewhere.

But, I'll humor you.

Slings, bows and arrows, etc. Just variations on a theme.
You can't even pretend to tell me that you're such a peaceful and passive person that you've never had a thought of violence come up your mind. You're no different than the rest of us. It's just that most of us are civilized and choose not to act out on those barbaric impulses. What about the people that don't have the same restraint?
You don't want to protect yourself from them? You want to trust some other people to be your protectors? So much that you will forego your own means of protection? So much that you build a society where people live in the dream that there's no need for that protection? So much so that you're now arguing that the protection itself may not be needed?

"Throw rocks" Perfect, be my guest! It is literally impossible for you to have a truck full of rocks to carre out a mass stoning. People can dodge your rocks. People can pick up rocks you threw and threw it back at you. Etc. It';s not feasible to carry out a massacre with rocks.

So rocks gets the greenlight.

I do not need guns to protect myself from the threats that I face. Mostly because I get no other guns as threats.

Not sure your point. They are getting bullied by nations with more firepower? Do you think that's anything but "normal" behavior for humans? Do you think human have ever historically had a time where this was not the way gov'ts are made and sustained?

The US provides arms for said conflicts. Without the US involvement, the conflicts would be on a much smaller scale.

Here is an example of how the US government saturated the Mexican cartels with guns. After this, the cartel violence went through the roof. This is Mexicans killing Mexicans, of course. But every bullet costs money, and someone makes and sells it.

Do you think the proposition that you can change human nature to not turn to violence is more reasonable than accepting who/what we are and acting in the rational acknowledgement that we are not "morally good" animals, when taken as a whole.

I think the notion that oppressed people are oppressed because their oppressors have more guns is the wrong way to look at things. The oppressed are oppressed because they lack the means to fight back.

EXACTLY. You can never make weapons go away. NEVER. Conflict is part of who we are. Violence is a trait we adhere to all too often.

Living in denial of human nature cannot be the best way forward. Ignoring that we are savage, brutal creatures cannot lead us to be less savage, less brutal.

Australia's "National Firearms Agreement" begs to differ.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I thought the notion you could die from drinking too much water was an urban myth.
Sorry. I take back my comment that was wrong about that.

Parents leave a gun where their baby can find it, and baby dies. That's criminal negligence on the part of the parents, IMO. Or worse.
Are you suggesting that the entire nation should be punished because of 2 bad parents?
What if the baby killed itself with a cordless drill? Would you be calling for the banning of cordless drills?
Or would you be blaming the parents for leaving that dangerous tool where a baby could get to it?

I think the sensationalism of guns draws attention, and disproportionate ire to the tool, and not the surrounding circumstances.

I'm not remotely compelled to allow some to spoil it for all when the stakes are this high.
When the genocides end for a decade or two, then we can start to talk Kumbaya.
When there is true world stability for a good hundred years, without any nations invading any other nations, then we can start to talk Kumbaya. I'm just not convinced that this altogether tiny moment in time and space is indicative of the moral uprising of humans.


I'm not worried about the relatively tiny number of deaths (ignoring suicides) caused by guns.
My position is about an inalienable human right to a means of lethal violence. It's not our tools that make us civilized; its our resolve to be civilized. There can be no civility when innocent people are told they can't do and own whatever they want.

[OngBonga]

There can be no civility when innocent people are told they can't do and own whatever they want.

I've been scanning through your convos because the gun thing isn't very interesting to me. But this is interesting. Are you an anarchist?

The problem with this sentence is your use of the word "innocent". You clearly put that there to give you outs when it comes to criminals and crazy fuckers, but the problem is that the state is who decides if you're innocent or not, that's not something you decide for yourself. I'm innocent. Except I smoke weed... that's illegal here, so I'm not so innocent after all. I've also had problems with depression... that's mental health and might be enough to stop me ever owning a shotgun licence. Smoking a joint, or asking your doctor for antidepressants might be enough for the state to decide you are not "innocent". In doing both, you're demonstrating a willingness to break the law, and also showing a degree of mental instability. I'd almost be inclined to say "fair enough" if they rejected me based on that alone.

Anarchy is the ideal state of civility. If people are civil when they can do literally as they please, then humans are a wonderful species. Sadly, civility is not what happens when people are truly free. We become less civil. What is civility? For me, it's what makes us different to animals. But when we live by the same rules as animals, we behave like animals. So anarchy and civility don't tend to happen in union.

[oskar]

I'll tell you what I told my mother on sunday: if you disagree with being called that, stop acting like one. You are condescending and disingenuous. Any time you don't have an answer, you change the topic, you gish gallop and you move on. You did that back on the other topic when you claimed that there has been no racial inequality in the US for 150 years, and when I ask you: what about [high school civics], you pretend like you didn't notice. Same thing here. You needle me endlessly to show you proof that guns make the owner less safe. I give you four different studies and you decide that it is now time to talk at length about how hurt your feelings are because of bad words.

What do you base your argument on that guns are an efficient tool against tyranny? It seems like your whole argument against gun control rests on this, but I am not aware of any historic precedent that is remotely relevant to the situation in the US.

[oskar]

Guns don't kill people (yet, the drones are coming). People kill people.

Guns don't kill people, drones kill people with guns.
I swear if Trump either gets voted out or whatever and maga tards rise up against the tyranny of democratic election and get evaporated by drones. I will jack off. I will call in sick, put that shit on repeat and jack off. Not out of sadism, but out of goddamn principle!

[oskar]

I mean, come on.

This is FUCKED.

Freedom isn't free. Thoughts and prayers. A small price to pay for the fantasy that you'll fight tyranny with 19th century technology... tyranny against the majority, 'cause like lol obviously. I mean if honduran refugees didn't want to get their children stolen they shouldn't have come to the land of the free.

[Poopadoop]

I'll tell you what I told my mother on sunday: if you disagree with being called that, stop acting like one.

Dont call your mom names, come on...

But otherwise I agree with a slightly milder version of what you said. Mojo gets in an argument and often goes off on a random walk of tangents.

I'll say to Mojo what I said to banana - more words != more correct. You can exhaust people with a wall of text, but that's not the same as winning the argument.

[Poopadoop]

Freedom isn't free. Thoughts and prayers. A small price to pay for the fantasy that you'll fight tyranny with 19th century technology... tyranny against the majority, 'cause like lol obviously. I mean if honduran refugees didn't want to get their children stolen they shouldn't have come to the land of the free.

What I find most sad about that video is the dad seeming so relatively unemotional about the whole thing - at one point he says it's the third time one of his kids' schools has been in lockdown. It's like 'well that's the way things are now, it sucks but wat r u gonna do?'

Meanwhile there's one mass shooting in NZ and right away they immediately changed the laws around gun ownership. Obviously they haven't heard of thoughts and prayers...

[oskar]

Dont call your mom names, come on...

I'd never call a woman a cunt. My moms brother died on sunday. Worst. mothers day. ever. Like two weeks after my great aunt died. I overdressed because I wasn't sure about that side of the family, but my uncle came in jeans and a work jacket. Now that he's dead at least I get a clear pass to wear jeans to his funeral. It all evens out.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I'll tell you what I told my mother on sunday: if you disagree with being called that, stop acting like one.

If you choose to participate in any conversation on FTR, it is incumbent upon you to do so in a respectful manner.

You are condescending and disingenuous.

I'm being neither. I'm simply a person who disagrees with you, and finds fault in your reasoning on this topic.
If I've offended you, I apologize.
I assure you that I feel no condescension toward you in my heart.

Please don't misconstrue my condescension toward your position as any reflection of my respect for you as a person.
You are much more than any one of your ideas.

To me, your proposal is wrong for humans. To me, it's unthinkable that you aren't absolutely raging at your own governments for punishing you like murderers over nothing to do with you. All because it's the laziest way to solve a problem.
Restricting human rights is a dangerous path. Any step in that direction must meet remarkable standards.

As far as I'm concerned, a certain percentage of deaths will happen. This is a consequence of freedom. It's not always the best for the good guys in the immediate and small picture. I hold that it's always the best in the long-term, biggest picture.

Any time you don't have an answer, you change the topic, you gish gallop and you move on. You did that back on the other topic when you claimed that there has been no racial inequality in the US for 150 years, and when I ask you: what about [high school civics], you pretend like you didn't notice.

You asked

Why does the average black household have 1/15th the net worth of a white household?

to which I replied

The legacy of institutional racism is still strong.

All of this is deplorable.

However, not caused by any active tempering by the feds. So you can't point your finger at the US gov't and blame them for the current state of things in any direct manner.
They'd have a claim that they've been actively trying to stamp down racism in law. It is illegal to discriminate based on race for any national matter, AFAIK.

So while there is this legacy... it's not been actively supported by the gov't for almost 150 years.

There are no other posts by you in that thread. I clearly did notice, and respond to clarify what I originally posted more as a troll because the thread wasn't going anywhere. The tone in my original post is clear.

Same thing here. You needle me endlessly to show you proof that guns make the owner less safe. I give you four different studies and you decide that it is now time to talk at length about how hurt your feelings are because of bad words.

I never asked you for "proof that guns make the owner less safe."
I criticized your comment

Every study ever done shows that guns completely fail at protecting you.

as unprovable based on your use of the phrase, "every study ever done."
I explained why science cannot prove a negative, and that as such, I have no method to affirm or refute your claim.
I further pointed out that the claim was not made in good faith, because you cannot have read, "every study ever done."
and I asked you if you'd like to rephrase that statement into something that isn't made up.

All of this is in the thread.
You made a bogus claim, and when I've critised that claim, you moved the goalpost to "not every one, but the top 5 posts on google." Which is fine with me. If that's what you meant in the first place, then I misunderstood.
Still... those top 5 results aren't big picture scans over all the relevant issues at hand. They're specific looks at one negative aspect of gun ownerships to the neglect of all others. To the extent that they illuminate that negative aspect, I agree with them entirely. Evaluating that negative aspect as the only or even most important factor in the conversation is where you and I seem to disagree.

What do you base your argument on that guns are an efficient tool against tyranny?

Any overthrow of a tyrannical gov't involves either defeating the military, or winning them over.
Removing one of those options entirely is dangerous at best.

It seems like your whole argument against gun control rests on this

It doesn't. You can find multiple posts above where I go over the many and nuanced factors that play into my decision.
First and foremost is that it is a fundamental, inalienable human right to the means of lethal force.

I am not aware of any historic precedent that is remotely relevant to the situation in the US.

Maybe because we have all these guns? IDK.

All the same, it's not Americans I'm worried about; it's humans. This is not a unique thing to any culture. Among other things, people have a tendency toward us/them mentalities and are prone to violence.
I'm not convinced that we, as a species are anywhere near a point where an inalienable right to a means of lethal violence would be more of a problem than a solution.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I've been scanning through your convos because the gun thing isn't very interesting to me. But this is interesting. Are you an anarchist?

I believe in a healthy mix of archy and anarchy.

The problem with this sentence is your use of the word "innocent". You clearly put that there to give you outs when it comes to criminals and crazy fuckers, but the problem is that the state is who decides if you're innocent or not, that's not something you decide for yourself.

It's complicated, yes. It doesn't "have" to be the state that regulates. It is with guns, but in theory, it could be industry-regulated. I'm not really in favor of that. I prefer to have elected, accountable politicians setting laws that we can badger them about.
I prefer a much less restricted environment when it comes to these restrictions.
I prefer non-violent people to be treated like non-violent people.

I'm innocent. Except I smoke weed... that's illegal here, so I'm not so innocent after all. I've also had problems with depression... that's mental health and might be enough to stop me ever owning a shotgun licence. Smoking a joint, or asking your doctor for antidepressants might be enough for the state to decide you are not "innocent". In doing both, you're demonstrating a willingness to break the law, and also showing a degree of mental instability. I'd almost be inclined to say "fair enough" if they rejected me based on that alone.

Anarchy is the ideal state of civility. If people are civil when they can do literally as they please, then humans are a wonderful species. Sadly, civility is not what happens when people are truly free. We become less civil. What is civility? For me, it's what makes us different to animals. But when we live by the same rules as animals, we behave like animals. So anarchy and civility don't tend to happen in union.

O.. K..?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Freedom isn't free. Thoughts and prayers. A small price to pay for the fantasy that you'll fight tyranny with 19th century technology... tyranny against the majority, 'cause like lol obviously. I mean if honduran refugees didn't want to get their children stolen they shouldn't have come to the land of the free.

The thing is that we assume innocent until proven guilty, here.
That means the bad guys get at least 1 act of violence before they get their rights taken away.
There's a price on freedom, but it means the good guys don't get their rights taken away.

[Poopadoop]

but my uncle came in jeans and a work jacket.

That seems a tad uncouth...

Now that he's dead at least I get a clear pass to wear jeans to his funeral.

May as well go all the way and wear some MC Hammer pants.

[oskar]

So I assume you will agree that guns are not making you any safer and we can drop that point? If you disagree with that it would be nice if instead of going off on tangents, you could provide me statistics that show the impact owning a gun has on a person's safety and talk me through how it supports your point.

On hunting: completely made up argument. In no scenario we're talking about would you not be able to hunt. The restrictions on typical hunting rifles are very very lax in every country we're taking as an example here. Nothing we're talking about would infringe on your right to buy hunting rifles and go hunt to feed your family and defend yourself from grizzly's.

On defending yourself from tyranny: if guns are doing that, I would assume you could name me a historical example of an armed militia fighting back against tyranny - preferably post the Age of Enlightenment.

[oskar]

That seems a tad uncouth...
May as well go all the way and wear some MC Hammer pants.

It wasn't. That whole side of my family is farmers. There were people there who looked like they just came off the fields in 1852. She died at 94. My grandmother, her sister literally owned ox drawn farming equipment and it wasn't decorative. Which is part of why it takes me aback when muricans talk about 150 years ago like it's the middle ages.

[Poopadoop]

It wasn't. That whole side of my family is farmers. There were people there who looked like they just came off the fields in 1852. She died at 94. My grandmother, her sister literally owned ox drawn farming equipment and it wasn't decorative. Which is part of why it takes me aback when muricans talk about 150 years ago like it's the middle ages.

Ah i get it.

Still, the MC Hammer pants would be a bold move.

[Poopadoop]

My grandpa was a farmer in the first generation of white settlers to Western Canada. He rode a horse and buggy to town to get his coal and then bought his breakfast for 25 cents (.15 Euros). One day (consarn it) he had a smoking wagon wheel that needed a-greasin'. He had to use his stetson to carry water from the canal to the wheel to keep it cool. Ruined his hat but saved the wagon wheel.

When his family first bought their land from the railroad (1 square mile for $64 -about 40 Euros) someone had to go meet the guy to sign the papers. My grandpa was the oldest son at 15 so he got picked. He rode up on a horse to meet the guy from the railroad and sign the deed. It took him half a day to get there and he saw no-one on the way. On the way back a blizzard started and he realized he was gonna freeze to death so he found an old abandoned shack, went inside, and found an old rug to roll himself up him. This was 1914 I think.

My grandma's family moved into the same area around the same time and she said when they arrived there were no old people around and no trees. Just bald prairie. Coyotes used to follow her and her sisters to school (looking for a weak one I imagine). I guess they were all reasonably fit though since they never got attacked or anything.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So I assume you will agree that guns are not making you any safer and we can drop that point?

No, I've never said that. It's a complicated issue that I don't think you can boil down like that.

If you disagree with that it would be nice if instead of going off on tangents, you could provide me statistics that show the impact owning a gun has on a person's safety and talk me through how it supports your point.

Your failure to follow your own arguments is not indicative of me going off on tangents.
I have repeatedly connected the dots with direct quotes from the thread.
Maybe refrain from inventing character flaws in me and actually try to understand what I've already said before moving forward.

If you want to talk about safety, then please do. Please stop injecting your bogey-man antagonist's positions to me.
The entire change of the subject to what I think instead of what you think is a "pivot" or "tangent" on your part.

The fact that I've tried to inject some of my position to combat the accusations about what my position is should not be taken as an indication that I'm changing the subject. I'm just tired of being accused of thinking things I don't think and saying things I've never said.

To wit: I never said guns make anyone safer. I said everyone has the right to fight against tyranny. Nothing about that is safe for anyone involved. I said everyone has the right to the means of lethal violence.

On hunting: completely made up argument.

It's not a made up argument. It's the 2nd clear example that you're making sweeping statements that are in themselves not compelling.
You're not against hunting guns? Do I hear you right? You said something about them being legal and that no one's talking about them not being legal... which I assume by "no one" you mean neither you nor I... so is that correct?

If you acknowledge that guns are tools, then your statement that guns are bad is incomplete at best.

If not all guns are bad, but only some guns, then what is the difference between those guns?
Is it that some guns don't kill? No. So your argument that guns are bad because they kill holds no water.
You're both not against other things that kill being outlawed, and you're in favor of some guns that kill not being outlawed.

Your position is more nuanced than you've presented it, so please stop blaming me for calling out the BS that you've presented for what it is.

So who draws the line about what's an OK gun and a not OK gun?
You? Me? The NRA? The gov't?
None of those are good choices, IMO. Not a one.

On defending yourself from tyranny: if guns are doing that, I would assume you could name me a historical example of an armed militia fighting back against tyranny - preferably post the Age of Enlightenment.

I can point you to any of the dozens of attempted and successful regime changes that have taken place in the past 50 years.

What's your argument, anyway? That if you can't win the fight against tyranny, you should lie down and let tyrants do whatever? Even when that involves a relatively constant string of genocides?

[dwarfman3]

Jeez, the randomness thread sure is salty these days.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The entire change of the subject to what I think instead of what you think is a "pivot" or "tangent" on your part.

What a jerk thing to say.

I'm sorry.

That's not me, really.

***
My criticisms of oskar's position are not really, directly relevant to my support for my own position.
I put little-to-no weight on the things oskar puts weight on, and he puts little-to-no weight on the things I put weight on.

The fact that the cheese argument comes across as disingenuous is probably rooted in that.
I get that gun deaths are ugly, that murder is ugly.
I just think it's the ugliness that triggers people and not the death.
I think that's easily provable if you just ask someone a couple of pointed questions about their positions on other, more prominent causes of death.
It's not that I think the cheese argument has something to do with guns. It's that I think the 'causes death' argument has nothing to do with guns. Yes, guns cause death, but so do a bazillion other things. I think its a red herring that's easily exposed when you point out that someone is OK with other causes of death, just not this one.


So it's not the death, it's something else... what is that something else?
Is it a strong enough reason to restrict everyone's freedom and curtail their rights over crimes they'd never commit?
Would the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty' not apply in this case? Why not?

[oskar]

You said you need a gun to keep your family safe. I'm confused how you can say that when it seems like every study ever done on gun ownership and safety shows that you are less safe owning a gun, and you still haven't addressed that. If your argument is that it is acceptable that children die because a gun is also a valid tool for protecting your family. That is a valid argument - IF you can show that owning a gun is a legitimate means to protect your family.

Do I need to explain the difference between a break barrel gun and a fully automatic with a high capacity magazine in the context of school shootings? Why are you writing paragraphs expressing your incredulity... I honestly don't understand your thought process there.
You are saying: it is ok that children die because you need to hunt to survive, or something less hyperbolical. You still can hunt with a break barrel gun which would be next to useless for mass murder. This seems like something worth addressing.

Who draws the line? The government draws the line! Wtf are these questions? The government currently draws the line, no gun regulation would change who draws the line, it just changes where the line is drawn.

[oskar]

A: Hey, you want to buy this child safety seat?
B: Sure. It makes my child more safe, huh?
A: Actually all data we have shows that it's much more likely to kill your child than to save it.
B: Huh?
A: Oh I guess you don't want it then?
B: No, I need my car to drive to work!
A: Oh you can drive without the seat no problem.
B: But what if my neighbors car transforms into Megatron and my car needs to transform into Optimus Prime to beat it?
A: That seems unrelated, has that ever happened?
B: No
A: Ok, no problem, I take the seat back.
B: HOW DARE YOU TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM!

[MadMojoMonkey]

You said you need a gun to keep your family safe. I'm confused how you can say that when it seems like every study ever done on gun ownership and safety shows that you are less safe owning a gun, and you still haven't addressed that. If your argument is that it is acceptable that children die because a gun is also a valid tool for protecting your family. That is a valid argument - IF you can show that owning a gun is a legitimate means to protect your family.

I never said that. Produce a quote and I'll look into what I actually said and re-phrase it to better reflect my position.
I doubt I've ever said anything to the effect of "guns make people safer." If so, I'd like to know the context of that comment, so I can clarify my meaning.

That's not my argument, so I don't need to show that. Indeed being shown that has impact on my decision, but it is nowhere the only or most important consideration.

Do I need to explain the difference between a break barrel gun and a fully automatic with a high capacity magazine in the context of school shootings?

No. I'm not interested in the fact that there are different guns. My assertion of the inalienable right to a means of lethal force makes no limiting stipulations on how good the means are at that purpose.
My position on school shootings is that the crazy person being in the school in the first place is the problem, whether or not they had guns.

Why are you writing paragraphs expressing your incredulity... I honestly don't understand your thought process there.

Because I'm incredulous at the notion that the best move is to let people without restrictions on what guns they can have impose restrictions on what guns other people can have.
How are you not?

Because I'm incredulous that you aren't raging at your own gov't for treating you like a violent criminal (assuming you're not).
How are you OK with having your rights curtailed when you have done nothing to warrant such?

Because innocent until proven guilty seems like a high moral standard worth upholding.
Do you not agree?

You are saying: it is ok that children die because you need to hunt to survive, or something less hyperbolical.

I'm not. I don't hunt at all.
You're conflating questions I ask to elucidate the contradictions in your position with assertions of my own position.

Which I already summarized in saying this:
"You're not against hunting guns? Do I hear you right? You said something about them being legal and that no one's talking about them not being legal... which I assume by "no one" you mean neither you nor I... so is that correct?

If you acknowledge that guns are tools, then your statement that guns are bad is incomplete at best.

If not all guns are bad, but only some guns, then what is the difference between those guns?
Is it that some guns don't kill? No. So your argument that guns are bad because they kill holds no water.
You're both not against other things that kill being outlawed, and you're in favor of some guns that kill not being outlawed."

Would you care to address this? 'Cause to me, it shows 1 more inconsistency in your position.

You still can hunt with a break barrel gun which would be next to useless for mass murder. This seems like something worth addressing.

Go ahead and address it, then.
If you want to tell me why you hold the position you hold, then I'm all ears. If you say a reason that doesn't seem in line with my sense of reality, then I'll question it. Those questions are not indicative of my reasons for my position, they're indicative of holes I think I see in your reasoning.

Who draws the line? The government draws the line! Wtf are these questions? The government currently draws the line, no gun regulation would change who draws the line, it just changes where the line is drawn.

I agree with the facts. I disagree that it's a moral situation.

I disagree that the gov't has any moral authority limit this inalienable right as I see it.

I genuinely wouldn't be surprised if someone else started posting on the MMM account a short while back. This doesn't sound like you at all.

For all the evidence in this conversation, you haven't actually understood anything I've said in the way that I said it.
Maybe it's not me that's off, here.